Talk:Gangut-class battleship/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * All ext links work according to the tools;
 * Alt text not present according to the tools. It is not a requirement for GA, so I won't hold it against the review, but you might consider adding it in.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I think that the lead is too long. Per WP:LEAD four paragraphs is the maximum, and there are currently five;
 * Consolidated and cleaned up.
 * Footnote # 5 appears to be in long style while the others are in short citation style;
 * Moved.
 * endashes should be added to the year ranges for the titles in the Bibliography section;
 * Done
 * I attempted a light copy edit, but the prose might still need tightening a little (not a major issue for this review, but please consider before ACR). For example, in the lead "three of the ships of the class" (which could be changed to "three ships of the class"). I'd be obliged if you took a quick run through and see if you could tighten anything, though;
 * See how it reads now; I've removed the text that somebody added that I wasn't aware of.
 * "...improved stability because the lack of elevated turrets and their barbettes, improved the survivabability..." (repeated word, can you reword please?)
 * Done
 * "Their role was to defend the mouth of the Gulf of Finland against the Germans, who never tried to enter, so they spent their time training and providing cover for minelaying operations." (This sentence sounds like the Germans spent their time training, rather than the ship. Could you perhaps reword slightly?)
 * Done
 * "All four of the Ganguts were assigned to the First Battleship Brigade of the Baltic Fleet in December 1914 – January 1915 when they reached Helsingfors although their turrets and fire-control systems were still being worked for the rest of the winter and spring" (this sentence might need to be broken up or reworded, I found it a little awkward);
 * Agreed, a little too much in one sentence. How does it read now?
 * sometimes you have "Imperial Russian Navy", and then sometimes "Russian Navy" - using interchangable proper nouns. I think that it would be acceptable to use interchangable terms if one was a proper noun and the other was an improper noun (e.g. Imperial Russian Navy and Russian navy) but not if both are proper nouns;
 * Fixed
 * there is some mix of US and British English variations, for example "armored" (US) and "defences" (British), "finalize" (US), "favour" (British), "harbor" (US), "rumours" (British);
 * Britishisms were all in sections I wrote using British sources. I must be some sort of linguistic chameleon.
 * "proper revolutionary names" - sounds a little tongue in cheek;
 * Actually not. It was a big deal for the Bolsheviks that they not have names that reinforced the Imperial legacy.
 * in the World War II section, Black Sea fleet subsection, some of the years are ambiguous and should be clarified. For instance, "Parizhskaya Kommuna was in Sevastopol and remained until 30 October...";
 * Done


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * one minor point, the information in the "Ships" section doesn't appear to be cited. I know that some of is cited earlier in the prose, but for ACR or higher you might get picked up on it, so if possible you might consider adding refs to the tabled information;
 * In this article everything in the infobox is cited in the main body because it's a comprehensive class article. That's not true, however, for the individual ship article that usually only have a precis of the technical specs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably fair enough. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * looks fine in this regard.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * All significant views and fairly represented.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * article is stable.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
 * Images appear to be correctly licenced to me.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within the required timeframe. As such I will place it on hold to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far.
 * Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the ✅ tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. All my concerns have been addressed or explained. Passing for GA. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)